Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 43

SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Research

Performance Management Survey

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

Contents
3 4 5 6 7 About This Report Sponsors A Message from the SHRM Foundation Executive Summary Survey Results 7 Overall Characteristics of Performance Management Systems 7 8 9 9 11 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 15 15 16 18 19 20 21 26 System Objectives: Employees Come First Satisfied With Appraisals; Dissatisfied With Development More Executive Support Required Top Effectiveness Measures System Components Are Integrated Performance Planning and Evaluation: Executives Have the Edge Development and Career Planning: A Need to Focus on the Future Classroom Training Popular and Preferred The Fully Developed Executive? Lack of Training in Feedback and Coaching

Planning and Evaluation

Development

Rewards: Performance Pay Common At All Levels Technology Industries: Champion for Non-Exempt Employees The Future: More 360-Degree Feedback Conclusion

Demographics A Message from Personnel Decisions International Sample Questionnaire Appendix


Society for Human Resource Management and Personnel Decisions International 1

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

About This Report

he Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), with partial funding from the SHRM Foundation, and Personnel Decisions International (PDI) co-sponsored the 2000 Performance Management Survey to gather information on performance management in todays workplace. The following report provides an analysis of the survey results, based on the responses of 480 human resource (HR) professionals. The traditional focus of performance management systems has been on performance planning and evaluation, rewards and discipline. In developing this survey, SHRM and PDI decided to focus on a more contemporary viewpoint of performance management. In addition to the traditional aspects, this survey covers development and career planning, feedback, coaching, training and development methods. The study objectives were to: measure current and best practices in performance management; measure how organizations view the effectiveness of their current performance management systems overall and of specific performance management tools; and forecast where activity will be shifting in the near future.

SHRM and PDI decided to survey SHRM members in organizations that were most likely to have performance management systems in placethose organizations with 100 or more employees. In July 2000, questionnaires were faxed to 2,710 SHRM members: one-third each from organizations with 100-499 employees, 500-2,499 employees and 2,500+ employees. Respondents could choose between two survey completion methods: paper or online. Of the 480 HR professionals responding to the questionnaire, 75% completed the paper survey and 25% completed the web survey. The survey report contains numerous tables and charts that capture the participants responses. Several comparisons based on organization size are made throughout the report. To see key data categorized by organization size, please visit either of the following web sites: www.shrm.org/surveys/ or www.personneldecisions.com. In addition, throughout the report readers are posed questions about their own organizations performance management practices in order to enhance the usefulness of the survey results. Also, the report includes a copy of the survey questionnaire and an appendix that contains white papers relating to performance management.

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

Sponsors

he Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is the leading voice of the human resource profession. SHRM provides education and information services, conferences and seminars, government and media representation, online services and publications to more than 140,000 professional and student members throughout the world. The Society, the worlds largest human resource management association, is a founding member of the North American Human Resource Management Association (NAHRMA) and the World Federation of Personnel Management Associations (WFPMA). The SHRM Foundation is a non-profit organization established in 1966 to fund and support applied research, publications, scholarships and educational programs to help HR professionals and their employers prepare for the future. The Foundations goal is to continuously improve standards of practice and performance for the HR profession

and to help HR leaders stay current with the latest developments and trends. Personnel Decisions International (PDI) is a global human resources consulting firm. PDI has helped client organizations meet their business challenges through integrated solutions to human resource needs since 1967. PDI works in partnership with clients to: define successful performance and identify the capabilities needed to achieve it. measure performance and capabilities, and evaluate potential. develop the capabilities needed to be successful now and in the future. PDIs goal is to help clients build effective organizations and gain competitive advantage through wisely choosing and effectively developing their most important assetpeople. For more information regarding PDI, see A Message from Personnel Decisions International following the survey report on page 20.

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

A Message from the

SHRM Foundation
Foundation-Related Research Projects
The SHRM/PDI survey on performance management systems is part of the larger human resource issues on productivity and career development. The SHRM Foundation is particularly interested in understanding more about the attitudes of employees today, especially in relationship to the organization. For example, here are two Foundation research projects currently underway that explore this issue in more detail: Changing Nature of the Employment Relationship : by Lynn M. Shore, Ph.D., Lois E. Tetrick, Ph.D., and Sandy J. Wayne, Ph.D. In the competition for talent, it is increasingly important for organizations to understand the changing nature of the employment relationship. The employment relationship refers to employees perceptions of what they owe the organization and what the organization owes them in return. The proposed research examines how HR practices help form the employment relationship, which in turn, influences organizational outcomes (commitment, performance, citizenship, turnover). Voluntary Turnover, Workforce Productivity and Organizational Performance: Investigating the Role of HR Management Investments: by Jason Shaw, Ph.D. This research project investigates the relationships between voluntary turnover and organizational performance in a survey study of 1,200 motor carriers, supplemented by two archival data sources. Results will enhance the scientific knowledge base and provide value for practitioners making HRM decisions that impact bottom line performance.

ts a great time to be a human resource professional. Companies today recognize that people are the competitive advantage, and HR is being asked to play a strategic leadership role in shaping their organizations future. To do this, human resource professionals will need to continually expand their knowledge and competencies. Thats why the SHRM Foundation is so important today.

Investing in Knowledge For Your Future


The SHRM Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that promotes research and development in the human resource field. The SHRM Foundation advances the profession and increases the knowledge and effectiveness of human resource professionals through its funding of leading-edge human resource research, publications and educational initiatives.

Sponsorship of the SHRM Survey Program


As a sponsor of the SHRM Survey program, the SHRM Foundation is able to provide timely research findings on important issues to SHRM members on a regular basis. For example, the following SHRM and Personnel Decisions International (PDI) survey on performance management systems offers rich insights into the importance of employee-oriented performance systems in todays highly competitive work environment. The survey findings reveal that employees today want to know the answer to the question made famous by Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York City: How am I doing? Like Koch, employees want feedback about their performance and what the organization expects of them. Furthermore, employees want information about what they need to do to develop as leaders and to increase their value as employees. This important survey provides food for thought for HR professionals especially the inclusion of development as part of performance management systems.

For More Information Contact the SHRM Foundation for more information about these and other research projects by emailing speyton@shrm.org. Thank you for your support of the SHRM Foundation and your commitment to excellence in the profession.

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

Executive Summary

he 2000 Performance Management Survey showed that performance management in organizations is evolving from a system dominated by the performance appraisal to a system that focuses on employee development. However, the transition is far from complete. Stronger executive support for performance management and increased employee participation in development activities is needed in order for performance management systems to truly become a tool to help attract and retain talent.

Seventy-five

percent of participants reported that most of their executives had performance goals linked to operating results, compared to 36% for exempt employees and 17% for non-exempt employees. Development planning and career planning efforts were limited. Twenty-five percent of participating organizations had written development plans for all executives, and a mere 8% of respondents organizations had career plans for all executives.

Development Overall Characteristics of Performance Management Systems

Classroom training was the most popular method


for professional development. Eighty-six percent of respondents organizations conducted in-house classroom training and 84% had employees participate in external classroom training. On-the-job training and in-house classroom training were rated as the most effective professional development methods. Independent study both traditional and online was viewed as the least effective development method. Respondents reported that a lower percentage of executives at their organizations compared with exempt and non-exempt employeesparticipated in most development activities.

Respondents

gave top priority to performance management system objectives focused on employees rather than managers. Respondents were significantly more satisfied with traditional system components performance planning and evaluations, discipline compared with developmental components leadership development, development planning, 360-degree feedback, and coaching. Executive support for performance management was lacking. HR professionals reported that many executives and senior managers did not endorse or even use their performance management system.

Planning and Evaluation

The Future 360-degree feedback

Seven

out of 10 respondents reported that their organizations had written performance plans for most executives. Nearly two-thirds (64%) had performance plans for most exempt employees, and nearly half (45%) had plans for non-exempt employees.

was the only specific performance management area where companies planned to increase their activity during the next year. 360-degree feedback was used by only onethird of respondents organizations.

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

Survey Results

n todays tight labor market, the ability to attract and retain valuable employees is a source of competitive advantage for organizations in every industry. One key to attracting and retaining high-performing employees is to provide strong support for their best performance: define and establish clear performance goals; track progress and give relevant, useful feedback; and develop employees to meet or exceed the companys goals and their own personal career goals. The traditional approach to providing such support has been in the form of performance management systems. But what are HR professionals objectives for their performance management systems? What are the current and best practices in performance management? How effective do human resource professionals think that their current performance management systems are both overall and with regard to specific tools? What are the greatest challenges to improving performance management systems? In which area of performance management will HR professionals concentrate their efforts in the near future? To answer these questions, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and Personnel Decisions International (PDI) conducted the 2000 Performance Management Survey. Survey respondents shared their insights on current prac-

tices and anticipated activity in performance management. The following pages report the results of this survey.

OVERALL CHARACTERISTICS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS System Objectives: Employees Come First
Survey participants believed that performance management systems should focus on the employee. Respondents were asked to place seven performance management system objectives in rank order based on their importance (1 being most important; 7 being least important). Results showed that the highest ranked objectives for performance management systems were employee-oriented: Provide information to employees about perceptions of their performance. Clarify organizational expectations of employees. Provide information to employees about their development needs. Those objectives focused on providing information to managers were ranked lower by survey respondents. For example, documenting performance for employee records and providing information to managers for making promotion/demotion decisions ranked sixth and seventh, respectively (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Objectives of Performance Management System


Objectives
Provide information to employees about their performance Clarify organizational expectations of employees Identify developmental needs Gather information for pay decisions Gather information for coaching Document performance for employee records Gather information for promotion decisions

Average Rank
2.8 2.8 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.6 5.2

Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

Satisfied With Appraisals; Dissatisfied With Development


Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of 10 performance management system components and their system as a whole. Respondents were significantly more satisfied with traditional performance management system components than with developmental components. For example, a majority of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with their organizations performance evaluations (61%), performance planning (51%), and discipline (51%), while only one in three were satisfied or very satisfied with leadership development (38%), development planning (34%), 360- degree feedback (33%), and coaching (33%) (see Figure 2). This may be due to the fact that organizations have been using traditional methods for a longer period of time, and that many organizations have only recently started thinking about development as part of their performance management systems.

This presents a gap between what HR professionals ranked as their most important objectives for their performance management systems and how their systems are actually working. They tended to be less satisfied with the developmental areas precisely those areas critical to achieving their objectives of providing information to employees about perceptions of their performance and about their development needs (e.g., 360 - degree feedback, development planning and coaching). If employees come first, should the focus of these systems shift to development from appraisal? Or can a system accomplish both? One-third (32%) of survey respondents were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with their overall performance management system. This dissatisfaction can largely be attributed to dissatisfaction with the developmental components of the system leadership development, coaching, 360-degree

Figure 2: System Satisfaction


High 80 %

Percent Satisfied and Percent Very Satisfied

61% 60 % 51% 51% 50% 49% 47% 46% 38% 34% 33% 33%

40 %

Performance Evaluation

System Components
Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey

360-degree Feedback

Leadership Development

Development Planning

Discipline

Performance Planning

Informal Feedback

Coaching

Overall

Rewards

Training

Low

20 %

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

feedback, and development planning. Many survey respondents recognized that employee development needed to be viewed as a retention strategy. Employees continue working for organizations where they feel they are: being adequately challenged, learning new skills and capabilities, supported and coached by their manager, and progressing toward their career goals.

ment system was undervalued in the company, and 14% stated that lack of system use by management was an obstacle (see Figure 3). Survey results showed that there is room for improvement with regard to executive support of performance management systems at respondents organizations. At 42% of participating organizations, executives did not review the performance management system at all (see Figure 4). Survey respondents recognized that executives needed to actively use the system and publicly support it in order for the system to have credibility. How would a change in executive behavior toward performance management improve its results? What would you have executives do differently?

More Executive Support Required


Clearly, executive support of performance management is critical to system success. However, results showed that respondents believed such support was absent. In an open-ended question, respondents were asked to list the greatest challenge to improving their performance management system. Many survey respondents focused on executive/management support. For example, one in four respondents (22%) explicitly mentioned that their greatest challenge was lack of support/endorsement from top management, 17% reported that their performance manage-

Top Effectiveness Measures


Respondents were asked in an open-ended question how the effectiveness of their performance management system was measured. Thirty percent

Figure 3: Future Challenges


25% 22% 20% 17%

Percent of Organizations

15% 10% 5% 0%

14%

13%

13%

13% 11%

Lack of use by management

Lack of training

Performance management undervalued in company

Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey 9

Require new/upgraded system

Lack of upper management support

Difficult to create performance goals

Requires too much time

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

Figure 4: Review by Management


60% 52% 50% 42%

Percent of Organizations

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 19% 15% 12%

37% Sr. Management HR Management 17% 6% Not Reviewed Biennial Annual More Frequent

Frequency of Review
Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey

Figure 5: Measures of System Effectiveness


35% 30% 25% 30%

Percent of Organizations

22% 19% 18% 12% 8% 7% 7% 5% 3% Compared with Business Goals Review Ratings Distribution Informal Feedback Compared with Performance Goals Survey or Focus Group Compared with Compensation Too New to Measure Turnover/Retention Forms Completion Informal Discussions 2% Training Needs 2% Productivity Changes

20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Method
Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey

10

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

of respondents listed informal feedback and 22% listed forms completion/timeliness of forms as the method used to measure effectiveness of the system. Other measures are listed in Figure 5.

System Components Are Integrated


When asked how well their performance management system components were integrated, 44% of respondents reported that their components were integrated or well integrated. Thirty-eight percent of respondents reported an average level of integration for system components (see Figure 6).

PLANNING AND EVALUATION Performance Planning & Evaluation: Executives Have the Edge
Seven out of 10 respondents reported that their organizations had written performance plans for most at least three out of four of their executives. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents organizations had performance plans for most exempt employees, and nearly half (45%) had plans for most non-exempt employees.

A disparity between executives and non-exempt employees existed in terms of linking performance goals to operating results. Seventy-five percent of participants reported that most at least three out of four of their executives had performance goals linked to operating results. Thirty-six percent of participating organizations linked performance goals to operating results for exempt employees and 17% of respondents organizations had performance goals linked to operating results for non-exempt employees. While it is true that executives often have more influence related to reaching operating results, non-exempt employees may feel disenfranchised because fewer of them have stated performance goals that are directly connected to business results. If non-exempt employees are typically a large percentage of the employee population and so few have goals related to operating results, is the linkage really necessary? Survey data showed equality across job levels as to who has input into performance evaluations. Approximately half of executives (55%), exempt

Figure 6: Integration of System

Well Integrated 15%

Integrated 29%

Not Integrated 4% Weakly Integrated 14% Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey 11 Average 38%

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

(61%), and non-exempt (53%) employees had input into their own performance evaluations. Across all job levels, the direct supervisor had the most input into performance evaluations (Figure 7). Performance plans and evaluations were largely done on an annual basis, with 85% of respondents organizations preparing performance evaluations and reviewing performance plans/goals annually for all employees. This leaves an opportunity for organizations/managers to review performance more often than once a year to check progress and to avoid annual surprises during performance review conversations. Are there pockets of success in your organization that can be explained by the informal impact of a great manager? What does this say about formalizing the review process is it really necessary? How can you transfer this success to other parts of your organization?

Development & Career Planning: A Need to Focus on the Future


According to survey results, 25% of participating organizations had written development plans for all executives compared with 17% for all exempt employees and 12% for all non-exempt employees. These percentages were even lower for organizations with 100-499 employees (23% for executives, 13% for exempt and 9% for non-exempt). Development plans were typically prepared and reviewed annually. Career plans were even less commonly used than development plans. Sixty-three percent of respondents reported that their organizations did not have career plans for executives compared with 66% for exempt employees and 73% for nonexempt employees. A mere 8% of respondents organizations had career plans for all executives and only 3% had career plans for all exempt and non-exempt employees.

Figure 7: Input into Appraisals


100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
93% 96% 96%

Percent of Organizations

49%

33%

35%

55% 61% 53%

Executives Exempt Non-Exempt

17% 16% 10%

14% 12% 4%

9% 13% 10%

Reports

Customers

Other Management

Supervisor

Group

Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey

12

Others

Self

Peers

9% 4% 5%

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

Organizations appear to be missing a key opportunity to retain employees. Employees who work for organizations that actively partner with them to create development and career opportunities are more likely to stay. This is supported by a 2000 SHRM Retention Practices Survey finding that a primary reason why employees voluntarily resign from their positions is to pursue career opportunities elsewhere.

DEVELOPMENT Classroom Training Popular and Preferred


Survey results showed that classroom training reigns as the most popular method of professional development. Eighty-six percent of respondents organizations conducted in-house classroom train-

ing and 84% had employees participate in external classroom training. Coaching from managers and on-the-job training/action learning ranked next in terms of usage. The development method used least by respondents was externally hired coaches (28%) (see Figure 8). Organizations with 2,500+ employees had the highest usage level for all development methods except external classroom training. Smaller organizations (with 100499 employees) had the lowest usage level for inhouse classroom training (83%), traditional independent study (53%), online independent study (34%), and externally hired coaches (17%). Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of eight professional development methods on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all effective and 5 is very effective. Survey respondents

Figure 8: Development Method Usage


100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 86% 84% 76% 74% 58% 44% 34% 28%

Percent of Organizations

In-house Classroom

On-the-job Training/ Action Learning

Traditional Independent Study

Online Independent Study

Job Assignments

External Classroom

Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey

External Coaching

Manager Coaches

13

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

viewed on-the-job training and in-house classroom training as the most effective professional development methods, with an average 3.90 effectiveness rating. They viewed independent study both traditional and online as the least effective development method (see Figure 9). What keeps people from actively pursuing their own learning through independent study? Although classroom training is popular and preferred, employees are not spending a signifi-

cant amount of time in the classroom. On average, exempt employees spent 2.6 days per year in classroom training compared to 2.3 days for executives and 2.1 days for non-exempt employees. Employees at organizations with more than 2,500 employees spent more time in the classroom on average compared with smaller organizations (see Figure 10).

The Fully Developed Executive?


Compared to exempt and non-exempt employees, fewer respondents reported that executives at

Figure 9: Development Method Effectiveness


5 3.90 3.85

3.79

3.78

3.77

Average Rating

3.60 3.30 3.27

1 Action Learning/ OTJ Training External Coaching Online Independent Study Job Assignments Traditional Independent Study In-house Classroom External Classroom Manager Coaches

Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey

14

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

their companies participated in development activities such as in-house classroom training, independent study, coaching provided by internal personnel, job assignments, and action learning/onthe-job training. The only development method that executives used more than other job levels was externally hired coaches of the respondents who do hire external coaches, 90% reported that executives at their organizations use external coaching as a developmental tool. Exempt employees led the way in terms of participating in development activities. Nearly all respondents reported that exempt employees at their organizations participated in the following development methods: in-house classroom training (95%), online independent study (94%), external classroom training (93%), coaching provided by managers (92%), and traditional independent study (91%). Non-exempt employees had the highest level of participation for on-the-job training (91%), and the lowest level of participation for external classroom training (74%) and external coaches (26%).

used internal coaching, yet only one-third of executives, managers and supervisors at their organizations were trained in coaching others. The challenge for organizations is to insure that all executives, managers and supervisors are using best practices and appropriate methods in providing feedback and coaching. If your managers are trained in coaching and giving feedback, how well are they doing it? If they need improvement, what will it take to help them be their best?

Rewards: Performance Pay Common at All Levels


Most participating organizations used performance bonus pay at all levels. For example, 86% used bonus pay for executives, 83% used it for exempt employees and 68% used it for nonexempt employees. The usage level for performance bonus pay was even higher at large organizations and those in the technology industry. The most popular types of performance bonus pay for all levels were based on individual performance, profit sharing, and team performance.

Lack of Training in Feedback and Coaching


On average, approximately half of executives, managers and supervisors in participating organizations were trained in providing feedback. Three out of four respondents organizations (75%)

Technology Industries: Champion for NonExempt Employees


Technology industries (e.g., finance, insurance, high tech/computers, and telecommunications;

Figure 10: Average Annual Classroom Training Hours, by Job Level Organization Size
Job Level
< 100 Employees (n=26) 15.8 hours 21.9 hours 16.0 hours 100-499 Employees (n=142) 16.3 hours 19.3 hours 17.2 hours 500-2,499 Employees (n=126) 16.7 hours 18.6 hours 14.8 hours 2,500 + Employees (n=160) 22.5 hours 24.2 hours 19.1 hours

Overall Survey Average (n=454)

Executives Exempt Non-Exempt

18.6 hours 21.0 hours 17.2 hours

Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey 15

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

organizations producing or highly dependent on rapidly changing technology) as a group led the way in using performance management tools for non-exempt employees, according to survey results. The technology industry group also had the highest usage and satisfaction levels for all development methods other than job assignments. Not surprisingly, the biggest usage gap was in online independent study. Fifty-seven percent of technol-

ogy organizations reported using online independent study, compared with 41% of manufacturing organizations and 42% of services organizations. The technology industry group also had the highest average annual classroom training hours for all levels (see Figure 11).

The Future: More 360-Degree Feedback


According to survey results, 360-degree feedback was used by only one-third of respondents organi-

Figure 11: Usage of Performance Management Tools, by Industry Group


Technology Industry Group (n=99) 60% 26%

Performance Management Tool

Manufacturing Industry Group (n=166) 37% 17%

Services/Other Industry Group (n=192) 46%

Performance plans for most* non-exempt employees Development plans for most* non-exempt employees Career plans for non-exempt employees Link performance goals to operating results for non-exempt employees Performance pay for non-exempt employees Online independent study Classroom training, average annual hours per employee Executives Exempt employees Non-exempt employees

16%

35%

27%

21%

77%

63%

53% 53% 42%

89% 57%

71% 41%

21 hours 26 hours 23 hours

18 hours 20 hours 16 hours

17 hours 20 hours 16 hours

*Denotes at least three out of four non-exempt employees Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey

16

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

zations for executives (32%) and exempt employees (29%), and only one-fifth (18%) of respondents organizations for non-exempt employees (see Figure 12). Larger organizations (with 2,500+ employees) tended to use 360-degree feedback to determine development needs and career plans. Respondents from mid-sized organizations (5002,499 employees) reported the highest usage level for determining pay changes. Smaller organizations (100-499 employees) tended to use 360degree feedback to evaluate performance.

Although current usage is low, the near future looks bright for 360-degree feedback. Data shows it is the only specific performance management area where organizations planned to increase their activity during the next year. This is especially true for smaller organizations (with fewer than 2,500 employees). Longer term, there is opportunity for organizations to shore up their efforts in the other developmental areas that exhibited dissatisfaction such as leadership development, development planning and coaching.

Figure 12: Usage of 360-Degree Feedback


90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Does Not Use Uses 32% 29% 18% 68% 71%

82%

Percent of Organizations

Executives Exempt Non-exempt

Usage

Source: SHRM /PDI 2000 Performance Management Survey

17

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

Conclusion
The 2000 Performance Management Survey showed that performance management in organizations is in transition from a system dominated by the performance appraisal to a more comprehensive human resource management system that includes activities such as development and career planning, leadership development, coaching and 360-degree feedback. However, the transition is far from complete. The biggest challenge facing HR professionals as they make this transition is to gain executive support for performance management systems. Currently, many executives are not reviewing or using the system, nor are they participating in development activities as much as other job levels. Executives need to be active role models for performance management and publicly support it in order for systems to have credibility. According to survey results, the most important performance management system objectives were

employee-focused. However, HR professionals were not satisfied with system components that were most likely to help employees improve their performance coaching, leadership development, 360-degree feedback and development planning. This dissatisfaction may be due to the fact that many organizations have been using traditional methods (e.g. performance appraisals, discipline) for a longer period of time and have only recently started to use developmental tools as part of their performance management system. Several performance management system aspects require additional focus, including increased support and review from senior management, more emphasis on formal feedback systems, development and career planning. These aspects will allow the performance management system to reach its full potential as a tool to fully utilize the potential of the existing workforce, to retain current employees and to attract additional talent as necessary.

18

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

Demographics
Number of Employees Total Company: Fewer than 100 employees 100 to 499 employees 500 to 999 employees 1,000 to 2,499 employees 2% 31% 14% 13% 2,500 to 4,999 employees 5,000 to 9,999 employees 10,000+ employees No response 8% 7% 20% 5%

Number of Employees This Location: Fewer than 100 employees 100 to 499 employees 500 to 999 employees 1,000 to 2,499 employees

15% 45% 16% 11%

2,500 to 4,999 employees 5,000 to 9,999 employees 10,000+ employees No response

4% 3% 2% 4%

Unionization (exempt employees in unions): None Less than 10% of exempt employees in unions 11 to 50% of exempt employees in unions

59% 12% 14%

More than 50% of exempt employees in unions No response

9% 6%

Type of Organization: Manufacturing Finance/Insurance Health Care Servicesprofit High Tech/Computers Nonprofit Transportation

35% 13% 11% 9% 5% 4% 4%

Wholesale/Retail Education Government Telecommunications Utilities Agriculture/Other No response

4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4%

19

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

A Message from PDI


A Message from Personnel Decisions International (PDI)
In todays workplace, human capital is the primary constraint in meeting organizational goals. Attracting and retaining talented employees and maximizing their performance have become of paramount importance. Thus, the role of HR professionals has never been more crucial to organizational success. At PDI, we are committed to helping the HR community succeed and believe that providing useful information, such as the Performance Management Survey, to HR professionals is our most important role. We are proud and excited to cosponsor the 2000 Performance Management Survey with SHRM, and are confident that the information provided in this report has been helpful to you.

About PDI
Personnel Decisions International (PDI) is a global human resources consulting firm. Our services and tools are developed out of extensive research and more than 30 years of experience with client organizations around the world. We know our services are effective because of our on-site, validated results with real clients in real business situations. We work in partnership with our clients to pinpoint their business needs, then bring together PDI consulting, services and tools to meet those needs. The solutions we create can be applied to individuals, teams and organizations. PDI solutions help our clients to define, measure and develop capabilities for successful performance. PDI has more than 20 operating offices around the world. Each office is staffed with consulting psychologists experienced in the cultures of their particular region. Every PDI client is served by a team of people selected from one or several offices for the expertise required by the clients business need.

Our Performance Management Perspective


PDI is dedicated to advancing performance management practices. We believe that a holistic approach to performance management that focuses on defining, measuring and, most importantly, developing capabilities is key to success. Our goal is to help our clients to advance their performance management processes so far that performance evaluations are no longer needed employees will receive feedback and develop capabilities daily, thereby eliminating the need for an annual evaluation.

For More Information:


Contact PDI for more information about our capabilities related to performance management or other business challenges. Call 1-800-633-4410 or visit our web site at www.personneldecisions.com for further information.

20

SHRM/PDI Performance Management Survey Summer 2000


Thank you for participating in the SHRM/PDI Performance Management Survey 2000. The objective of this survey is to understand current practices in the entire area of performance management, including performance planning and evaluation; development and career planning; feedback, coaching, training and development, and rewards. All responses are confidential. Please complete the survey by July 28, 2000 and fax back to SHRM at (703) 836-0367 or mail to SHRM, Survey Research, 1800 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Or you may complete this survey online at http://www.surveyhost.com/perform/. Your password is "survey". If you have any questions about the survey, call Tom Eckstein or Sarah Kiecker, representatives for PDI, at 800-750-4077. 1. Overall Characteristics of your Performance Management System 1a. Using the following scale, please rate your satisfaction with the following parts of your current performance management system. (Check one box per row.) Performance planning/goal setting ..... Performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360-degree feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Informal feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coaching and/or Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leadership development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rewards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall performance management system . . 1b. How frequently is the effectiveness of your Performance Management System reviewed by Senior Company Executives? ... Human Resources? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Very Unsatisfied

.Neither

Very Satisfied

NA

Quarterly

SemiAnnually

Annually

Every 2 Years

Not Reviewed

1c. How is the effectiveness of your Performance Management System measured?

1d. In your opinion, how well integrated with each other are the components of your performance management system (performance planning and evaluation; development and career planning; feedback, coaching, training and development, and rewards)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not Integrated 1 2

Average 3

Well Integrated 4 5

1e. Rank the importance of the following performance management system objectives. Place a "1" next to the objective that's most important, a "2" next to the objective that's second most important, etc. If any item listed below is not an objective of your organization's performance management system, check the box labeled "NA" (not applicable) in the second column. Clarify organizational expectations of employees .............. Provide information to managers for coaching purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . Provide information to managers for making pay decisions . . . . . . . . . . Provide information to managers for making promotion/demotion decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provide documentation on performance for employee records. . . . . . . . Provide information to employees about perceptions of their performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provide information to employees about their development needs. . . . . Other 2. Characteristics of Performance Planning/Goal Setting and Evaluation

NA

2a. What percentage of employees from each of the following groups have WRITTEN < 10% - 25% - 50% - 75% performance or goal plans? (Check one box None 10% 24% 49% 74% 99% All per row.) Senior Executives .............. Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2b. How frequently are performance evaluations SemiEvery 2 conducted for employees in the following groups? Quarterly annually Annually Years Other (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives ................... Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How frequently are performance plans/goals 2c. SemiEvery 2 reviewed with employees from the following Quarterly annually Annually Years Other groups? (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives ................... Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d. What percentage of performance plans for employees in the following groups have < 10% - 25% - 50% - 75% performance targets directly connected to None 10% 24% 49% 74% 99% All operating results? (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives .............. Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2e. Who has direct input into the performance evaluation process? (Check ALL that apply in each row.) Senior Executives evaluations .. Exempt evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt evaluations . . . . . . . . . .
Direct Other Super- Managevisor ment Self Direct CustPeers Reports omers Others

Complete and return by July 28, 2000

3. Characteristics of Development and Career Planning 3a. Percent of employees from each group with a WRITTEN development plan for next 12 None to 18 months? (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives .............. Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3b. How frequently are development plans prepared for each group? (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives .................. Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3c. How frequently are development plans reviewed for each group? (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives ................. Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3d. Percent of employees from each group with a WRITTEN career plan for next 2 to 5 years? (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives .............. Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

< 10%

10% 24%

25% 49%

50% 74%

75% 99%

All

SemiEvery 2 Not Quarterly Annually Annually Years Reviewed

SemiEvery 2 Not Quarterly Annually Annually Years Reviewed

None

< 10%

10% 24%

25% 49%

50% 74%

75% 99%

All

4. Characteristics of Feedback, Coaching and T&D 4a. Which of the following development methods are used in your organization? (Check yes or no in the first two columns below for all that are used.) 4b. For each method used in your organization, please indicate which employee groups participate. (Check all groups participating in the last three columns below.)
Yes No Sr. Execs. Exempt Nonexempt

In-house, instructor-led classroom programs . . . . . . External instructor-led classroom programs . . . . . . . Independent study using traditional methods . . . . . . Independent study using online materials . . . . . . . . Externally-hired coaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal Coaches (HR, managers or other employees) Systematic job assignments, job rotation . . . . . . . . . Action Learning and other On-the-Job training . . . . 4c. How effective do you believe the following development methods are as used by your organization?
Not at all Somewhat Very Effective . Effective . Effective NA

In-house, instructor-led classroom programs . . . . . . . . . External, instructor-led classroom programs . . . . . . . . . . Independent study using traditional methods . . . . . . . . . Independent study using online materials . . . . . . . . . . . . Externally-hired coaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal coaches (HR, managers, other employees) . . . . Systematic job assignments, job rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . Action Learning and other On-the-job training . . . . . . . . Complete and return by July 28, 2000

4d. Percent of employees from each of the following groups who are trained to provide feedback to others? (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives .............. Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First-Line Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4e. Percent of employees from each of the following groups who are trained to coach or mentor others? (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives ............. Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First-Line Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . .

None

< 10%

10% 24%

25% 49%

50% 74%

75% 99%

All

None

< 10%

10% 24%

25% 49%

50% 74%

75% 99%

All

4f. Average number of hours of overall classroom training provided per year for each employee group? (Check one box per row.) Senior Executives .................... Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4g. What percent of the following employee groups receive formal 360-degree feedback? (Check one box in each row.) Senior Executives .......... Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4h. How is 360-degree feedback used for each group? (Check all that apply.) Senior Executives ..... Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Characteristics of Rewards

None

< 10 hrs.

11 21 41 20 hrs. 40 hrs. 60 hrs.

> 60 hrs.

None

< 10%

10% 24%

25% 49%

50% 74%

75% 99%

All

Determine Evaluate development Determine Determine performance needs pay changes career plan Do not use

5a. What basis does your organization use for performance bonus pay for the following employee groups? (Check all that apply per row.)
Team Competency Individual Performance or Skill Profit Stock None Other

Senior Execs. . . . . . Exempt . . . . . . . . . . Non-Exempt . . . . . . 5b. Describe other performance bonus pay methods used.

Complete and return by July 28, 2000

6. Future Activities 6a. Using the following scale, please rate how much emphasis your organization will place on the following parts of its performance management system in the next year. Performance planning/goal setting ......................... Performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360-degree feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Informal feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coaching and/or Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leadership development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rewards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall performance management system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Less 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

About the same More 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

6b. What do you believe is the greatest challenge to improving your organization's current performance management system?

7. Organization Characteristics 7a. Number of Employees in This Location


Less than 100 100 - 499 500 - 999 1,000 - 2,499 2,500 - 4,999 5,000 - 9,999 10,000 and over

7b. Number of Employees in Entire Organization


Less than 100 100 - 499 500 - 999 1,000 - 2,499 2,500 - 4,999 5,000 - 9,999 10,000 and over

7c. Percent of Employees in Unions


None Less than 10% 11 to 50% Over 50%

7d. Primary Industry


Computers, components and software Manufacturing - non-durables Manufacturing - durables Telecommunications Other: Transportation Utilities Wholesale/Retail Finance Insurance Health Services -- profit Services -- non-profit Education Government

8. Optional Name: Phone: Company: May we contact you if we need to clarify any of your answers? . . . . . . . .

Yes

No

Please fax your responses to 703-836-0367 or mail it to SHRM, Survey Research, 1800 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 before July 28, 2000. Results will be available in October, 2000. SHRM members may obtain the report summarizing survey results at no cost at www.shrm.org or may purchase a copy from the SHRM Store. Thank you for your time and experience.

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

A PDI White Paper

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: A Vital Key to Retention


By Diane Marentette Courtesy of Personnel Decisions International

ompetition abounds in the business marketplace as well as in the talent marketplace. CEO after CEO calls for increased individual and organizational performance, while at the same time organizations wage campaigns to win the hearts and minds of employees and candidates. With this increased emphasis on performance improvement, competition for employees, and intense drive for increased retention, one would think that organizations would get better at performance management which is one of the primary organizational processes that can result in real, tangible improvement in performance, attraction, and retention of employees. Yet, performance management retains its untapped potential because organizations continue to limit it to an HR administrative system which remains surprisingly unrelated to the current or future business needs and continue to focus much of the performance management process on activities which actually serve to demotivate employees. Strong, effective performance management systems are one key to attracting and retaining high-value employees. Employees perform best and stay with their employer when they receive the proper support from management, and when they know that their efforts will be rewarded. In an effective performance management system, goals are clearly defined, progress is tracked, feedback is provided regularly, performance is evaluated fairly and equitably, and career and development opportunities are available. Despite its heightened importance, many companies fail to provide strong performance manage-

ment systems. PDI believes that organizations can dramatically improve the effectiveness and relevance of their performance management processes by creating the foundation of the system in the organizations competitive strategy and considering that performance management actually begins before employees even join the organization. PDIs Talent Pipeline (Fig. C) illustrates that by aligning the business and human capital strategies of the organization from the start, a company increases its ability to identify the right people, make a compelling offer, develop a talent-building culture, and implement a strategy for maintaining great talent. With the Talent Pipeline in mind, two major factors point toward the problems in todays performance management systems: Few performance management systems are linked to the overall organizations strategy or objectives. For example, if a companys goal is to develop digital commerce capabilities, its vital for employees individual performance plans to include developing their personal digital commerce abilities. Unless this connection between personal and company goals exists, employees can easily feel that they dont make a difference to the overall goals and success of their employer. Too many performance management systems are focused on measurement rather than development. Emphasizing evaluation and expectations rather than personal development puts employees on the defensive and demotivates them to participate actively in the process.

26

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

There is a better way to get the most from a companys human capital and develop a culture in which employee training and development is linked directly to the organizations goals. But knowing what is wrong with todays performance management systems and fixing them are two different things. To help find the way, we first need to explore the weaknesses of traditional performance management systems.

ing coaching and feedback. Toward the end of the cycle, the employees performance is evaluated. Finally, this evaluation is shared with the employee to help improve his or her performance. But something crucial is missing from this blueprint: This traditional system is not configured to directly support the employers overall goals and expectations. Beginning employee performance planning without understanding an organizations strategy is like pouring concrete for a new buildings foundation before the blueprint is finished. Securing a strategic foundation will not only build employees confidence in the relevance of the process, it will also make it possible to link the achievement of employees performance goals directly to the organizations operating results. Currently, this isnt happening very often, even in the upper echelons of organizations. To lay the foundation properly, PDI contends a company must identify its strategic business goals,

Traditional Performance Management Systems


A common blueprint for performance management systems includes four phases: performance planning, ongoing coaching and feedback, appraisal of accomplishments, and identifying areas for improvement. Typically, these elements follow an annual cycle. The cycle, as illustrated here (Fig. A), begins with a planning process to set expectations for both the employee and employer. Throughout the year, the employees performance is guided through ongo-

Figure A

THE TRADITIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM


Performance Planning Identifying areas for improvement Appraisal of Accomplishments Ongoing coaching and feedback

27

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

translate them into business plans, and incorporate them into a Performance Model that defines the performance needs required to achieve the organizations expectations and goals. (See Fig. B) This performance model will spur top management to recognize the needs of the organization in human capital terms and understand the demands the organization will place on its employees. For example, if the organizations business goal is to grow aggressively in a highly competitive market, performance models should emphasize cultivating business development skills that the company doesnt yet have. The performance model will also identify resources that must be acquired or developed to reach those performance expectationsthis allocation of resources is

the true beginning of the performance management cycle. In addition, linking organizational goals with staff development will help attract executive support for performance management systems.

Performance Planning
The traditional system begins with a planning process intended to reveal and clarify performance expectations of both the employee and the employer. Most organizations have a very structured planning process, with written goals for each employee. When done well, the goals laid out in the performance plan are specific and comprehensive enough for employees to truly understand the organizations needs. Often, performance plan-

Figure B

AN IMPROVED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM


Strategic Business Goals Performance Model
Performance Planning Identifying areas for improvement Appraisal of Accomplishments Ongoing coaching and feedback

Business Plans

28

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

ning is not done well, however. Overall, this process can do well at clarifying expectations of both employees and the employer. However, two glaring problems complicate most performance planning processes: 1. If a performance model doesnt exist, individual employee goals may not be linked to the performance needs of the organization. The goals set during performance planning should extend from the organizations performance needs as outlined in the performance model. 2. These goals are often simply handed to employees with little discussion of how achieving them will fulfill the organizations needs. Therefore, employee buy-in to accomplish these goals may be low, leading to limited enthusiasm to do the work.

used to benefit both the company and the employee, such as: to recognize employee accomplishments to make compensation decisions to determine development needs But consider the sensitivity surrounding evaluation. While it is important for employees to understand their level of performance, it is human nature for people to feel that they are doing a good jobperhaps even a great job. It can be very wounding for the ego should the performance evaluation find differently. Feeling ones efforts are unappreciatedcompounded by the companys failure to provide help for improvement through coaching and developmentdemotivates employees and can perpetuate subpar performance.

Ongoing Coaching and Feedback


Once goals have been established, the typical performance management system requires the manager to hold performance reviews with the employee periodically and to provide ongoing coaching and feedback. This frequent communication also supplies opportunities to revisit the goals and consider any changes that should be made to reflect changed circumstances. Surprisingly, coaching and feedback arent often regarded as very important. Few managers currently provide regular coaching and feedback, and some simply dont do it at all. And, even many human resource professionals dont consider coaching to be an important objective of a performance management system.

Identifying Areas for Improvement


Typically, performance evaluation information is shared with the employee to improve his or her performance, usually through the use of a development plan. Like performance planning, development planning is often dictated by the manager, whose suggestions for improvement are expected to be acted upon whether the employee believes in it or not. Yet without the employees agreement that improvement in a specific area is necessary, it is very unlikely that any real improvement will happen. Whats more, if these areas of improvement are not linked closely to organizational goals, the employee will see even less reason to work to improve. Overall, there are two main weaknesses of the traditional performance management system. First, employees are often not clear how their performance goals link to the companies needs and

Appraisal of Accomplishments
Toward the end of the cycle, the employees performance is evaluated. This information can be

29

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

expectations whether because no performance model was created or because the link was not explained to the employee. And secondly, not enough value or effort is given to supporting the employees ability to perform at their best.

and growing so they perform well in their current and future roles. In return, the company offers its employees the opportunity for continuous learning and the chance to grow into new, more interesting and rewarding roles.

A Better Way PDIs Talent Pipeline


While most traditional performance management systems dont even start to engage employees until after theyve been on the job for months, PDI believes that optimizing employee performance begins even before the person is hired. Managers, co-workers and the general work environment all affect employee performance. The Talent Pipeline outlines five specific junctures that have a critical impact on how well employees perform.

Select
Screening and pre-employment testing processes can help determine if the candidate has the skills and personality traits that match the companys expectations. Then, for much the same reason, those expectations should be discussed with the candidate during the interview process. The interview is an opportunity for candidates to share what motivates them and what they expect from their career and their employer. This communication is critical for finding the right person someone who possesses the required competencies, has the ability to adapt to changes in expectations as future requirements become necessary, and who is a likely fit with the organizations culture and values. The employee must clearly understand the expectations of the job or at least have a realistic preview in order to decide whether he or she is a right fit for the company and the position. Aligning the companys needs with those of the potential employee is critical to maximizing the performance of each new employee.

Attract
As soon as the performance model identifies a need to fill or create a position, the company must identify its current and future expectations for that position. This will help the company define a compelling value proposition for candidates and market that message to the right audience. The company needs to communicate that it expects its employees to be constantly learning

Figure C

PDIS TALENT PIPELINE


Business Strategy Human Resource Strategy Performance Model

Attract Select Mobilize Develop Retain

30

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

Mobilize
Once an employee is hired, he or she needs to be mobilized to do the job and meet or surpass expectations. This means the company and the manager need to communicate clear and accurate expectations. The employer must orient the employee to the organization and his or her new role, and provide the training needed for the employee to perform the job. The culture of the organization and context of the work will greatly affect how successful the employee will be. Along with day-to-day information about how to use the fax machine and where to pick up a paycheck, companies must help the new employee begin to understand the unwritten rules of working within the organizations culture those things that cant be understood until they are experienced. The company must take care to integrate new employees into company activities, group meetings and social events to help them understand the organizations culture and heritage, what it stands for and how it operates. Lessons learned and mindsets locked in during this acclimation process can last the entire tenure of a persons employment, affecting the performance and success of both the employee and the organization. Mobilizing requires ongoing evaluation, feedback and adjustments, and is frequently the driver behind traditional performance management systems. However, key characteristics of successful mobilization are: 1) the regular clarification of performance expectations, and 2) the ongoing feedback and coaching provided to help the employee perform at his or her best immediately and consistently. This is not a one-sided process. The manager and the employee must work together to ensure buy-in

and even enthusiasm for meeting expectations, being open to feedback, and regularly exchanging ideas about how everyone involved can achieve their best and the companys best. PDI developed the GAPS Model (Fig. D) to highlight the critical information needed during the mobilization process. Goals and values: The only way to ensure people will perform their best is to understand what motivates them. Managers should not assume they know what matters to employees they must ask them. Regular conversations about what gets them charged up, what they like to do, and what they care about will help the manager understand what drives their behavior. The more that is known about an employees personal interests, values, desires, work objectives and career aspirations, the better prepared the manager is to talk about their performance. Abilities: Managers must explore the employees view of his or her own capabilities, style and performance especially in relation to important goals, values and success factors. This provides great information about how employees see themselves compared to how others see them. Perceptions: Managers should share with employees how others perceive their capabilities, style, performance, motives, priorities and values. Others perceptions arent necessarily true, but they do represent a slice of reality. It is the managers role to help the employee understand the reality created by identified perceptions and to help them decide whether they can be successful in that setting. This can be the basis of change, once an employee understands how his or her own goals may not be met successfully without his or her attention.

31

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

Figure D

GAPS
The Persons View Others Views

Where the person is ABILITIES


How they see themselves

Where the person is going GOALS & VALUES


What matters to the person

PERCEPTIONS
How others see the person

SUCCESS FACTORS
What matters to others

Copyright 2000 Personnel Decisions International Corporation. All rights reserved.

Success factors: Managers must clarify what matters to other people in the organization, including the manager as well as others important to the employees success, such as senior management, peers and direct reports. Once the dialogue between the manager and employee has strengthened to a point where information is available to both in all cells of the GAPS model, related and important conversations can take place. Is there a gap between what the organization expects of the employee (success factors) and what the employee wants to do (goals and values)? If so, is it possible for both to be accomplished? If not, is this job or even organization the best place for this employee to be successful?

Is there a disconnect between what the employee thinks he or she is good at (abilities) and what others perceive (perceptions)? What impact is that having on the employees ability to accomplish his/her own goals? Throughout the mobilization process, these conversations deepen the commitment to high levels of performance, as well as help the manager and the employee understand the constraints to achieving it.

Develop
Because evaluation and feedback are part of mobilizing an employee, it is important to follow up with opportunities for the employee to develop in the areas where he or she needs or wants to improve. An employee who is encouraged and enabled to develop his or her skills will be much more satisfied and loyal to the employer. Also,

32

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

increasing an employees versatility, adaptability, and effectiveness for future assignments and challenges will make him or her a more valuable and valued employee. The organizations culture is critical to development. The Successful Executives Handbook (PDI, Oct. 1999) lists ten characteristics of an environment that supports employee development: Open discussions with people about performance and development needs are common. People feel like they get honest feedback. People feel responsible to focus and meet their objectives. Leaders encourage others to take appropriate risks to pursue learning. People are willing to try new things. New ideas and fresh perspectives are welcomed. People can challenge the status quo. The culture encourages people to do new things. People are held accountable for meeting objectives and delivering on commitments. People trust their leaders to walk their talk. Enhancing the organizations culture to support development has a tremendous impact on enhancing performance of individual employees. When employees can expect honest, candid feedback on all aspects of their performance, they will work harder to avoid unpleasant feedback and generate positive feedback. If employees are encouraged to be curious and challenge the barriers that stifle their performance, they are more likely to

improve their ability to overcome those barriers. Finally, if employees are held accountable for enhancing their performance, the organization will see the support of development throughout the culture.

Retain
Employee turnover costs companies both hard and soft dollars. It is expensive to interview, hire and train someone. Plus, an employees departure can cause poor customer service, reduced morale and employee uncertainty. The time and energy it takes to hire a new employee pays off only if the employee was right for the job in the first place and stays with the company. Many elements affect retention, including the level of compensation and benefits, work environment comfort, relationship with co-workers and boss, feelings of being appreciated, and personal factors that are completely uncontrollable by the company. However, the connection between enhancing performance and retention is strong when people are actively and passionately pursuing being their best, they are less likely to leave. By the time the employee is being provided with development, it should be clear which employees are not a good fit with the position or the organization. Releasing with dignity those who dont fit and helping them find other opportunities is not a punishment. In fact, it is just one more step necessary to help them achieve their best performance and be personally successful.

33

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

Enhancing Performance
Employees perform at their best when their employers strategic goals, human capital decisions and individual employee goals are aligned and when employees are given the support they need to achieve those goals. Sticking with a performance management system that regularly reminds employees of their inability to satisfy some organizational need can reduce performance and may even cause the loss of a potentially good employee. In todays tight labor market, that lost employee represents lost dollars and lost opportunity. Human resource professionals and their companies should ask some hard questions about what they are accomplishing with their performance management systems. What will it take to improve the system for the betterment of employees and, in turn, the company? Do not assume the answer to these questions will be too hard to implement or too expensive. It costs too much not to provide the support that will drive employees, and their employers, to the best performance possible.

34

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

An SHRM White Paper

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AS AN EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT TOOL


by Howard M. Pardue, Ph.D., SPHR
ne of the critical human resource issues of the 21st century is an organizations ability to refine and develop mechanisms to provide meaningful job performance feedback to all employees. A positive and coherent understanding between the employee and supervisor as to what is acceptable job performance is essential for all employee and management work relationships to survive. Optimum development and proper utilization of each employee is essential to the success of any organization. How am I doing? is often one of the most urgent questions on an employees mind today. Providing factual, candid and objective answers to this question is an effective means of enhancing employee development and sustaining a sound employee relations program. The enhancement of understanding can be accomplished in two basic ways: Job Descriptions All employees must understand what is expected of them in the performance of their jobs. Behavioral research data clearly indicates that many organizations throughout a global economy today continue to persist in assuming the employee knows what is expected without ever discussing the expectations of the job to be performed. Performance Appraisal Employee opinion survey data indicates the need for employees to be given continuous performance feedback in a constructive, coaching, mentor relationship. Management creates a high percentage of its problems by totally ignoring the need to inform the employee how he/she is doing, thus creating a high level of uncertainty, anxiety, low productivity and in many cases the loss of a loyal and productive employee.

Appraisal has been defined as the act of the judging quality and value. Performance appraisal within the organizational context is the supervisors judgment of how well an employee performs his/her job based on established job measurement criteria. Note that it is job performance which is being appraised and rated. A performance appraisal that focuses primarily on employee personality traits does little to enhance productivity or identify training, career developmental needs, potential promotability, and contributions an employee is making toward meeting organizational objectives.

Why Have A Performance Appraisal Program?


Volumes have been written on the subject of employee performance appraisal. The arguments for and against formal appraisal systems continue. The increased demand for accountability by government agencies and related legislation, which we will address later, including legal challenges of human resource decisions, have made performance appraisal systems almost a necessity rather than a luxury for all organizations. The human resource professional must direct a performance appraisal system for many reasons, not the least of which is a well documented method that can be accepted as a valid defense in litigation proceedings. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions Uniform Selection Guidelines have literally forced performance appraisal systems into being. There are many other valid reasons to conduct employee performance appraisals and many potential uses for the information generated. Decisions related to promotability, advancement, selection for training, salary administration, discipline and even potential termination may flow
35

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

from the results of an objective performance appraisal process.

What Elements Make A Good Performance Appraisal System?


Ideally the ingredients of an effective state-of-theart performance appraisal program should be designed to ensure: 1. That all employees are periodically interviewed regarding their career progress to assist them in developing to the fullest. 2. That a systematic measure of an employees overall value to the organization is recorded. 3. That essential information concerning the strengths and weaknesses of all employees in relation to career development including potential for advancement and suitability for other positions and training is recorded. The major underlying principles of a truly participative, performance oriented appraisal program are as follows: 1. The appraisal of a subordinates job performance is a part of the normal day-to-day responsibility of every supervisor and relates directly to his/her responsibility for planning and assignment of work. 2. Criteria for job performance must be related to the job itself. Sufficient flexibility should be maintained so that achievement measures can be set to reflect accurately and realistically the unique requirements of different positions, levels of assignment and operating conditions. 3. Improvement in job performance can be accomplished most effectively if the employee participates directly in establishing the achievement measures for his/her job. To do a better job, the employee should know what is expected, how he/she is doing on the job and where assistance can be obtained when needed.

4. Employees are inclined to accept suggestions for improving and/or maintaining their performance when they are provided feedback on a continuing basis. 5. The supervisors prime responsibility is to coach and collaborate in an individuals development. Two major forces in an employees development must be given full consideration to achieve maximum results: a. The employee must recognize and understand the responsibility of his/her immediate supervisor as that of an active partner and coach in providing career and job related assistance. b. The supervisor must recognize and be concerned with the employees personal aspirations, motivation and career growth needs. 6. An effective performance evaluation system requires supervisors to communicate job standards and other expectations to employees before the evaluation period begins. By doing so, employees know what constitutes good performance and the supervisor can then more objectively assess performance. 7. Effective compensation systems must link performance achievements to salary increase considerations. Even the best compensation plan is difficult to administer if performance is not the major determining factor in granting salary increases. 8. Frequent feedback sessions must be conducted with employees throughout the evaluation period. Periodic mini-session reviews, held perhaps monthly helps minimize the employee from being surprised at appraisal time, and helps maintain focus. 9. Career pathing and counseling must be a part of the performance review cycle. By focusing on performance accomplishments, more precise guidance can be given to employees about career options with the company, and the achievement of agreed upon milestones.

36

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

Performance Appraisal Legal Issues


Earlier mention was made of the need to design appraisal programs that will meet legal guidelines. Defending performance appraisals has attracted increased attention in the last few years, especially since most organizations are now aware that human resource decisions based on performance appraisals can affect employment conditions for protected employee groups. The seriousness of this problem is underscored by the fact that several million employees have their job performance appraisal annually for purposes of salary review, promotion consideration, human resource development progress, and potential corrective action items. Although several articles which have appeared in human resources literature since the mid-70s have been useful in highlighting specific legal issues involving performance appraisal, few have articulated the relative importance of the various factors that explain how organizations can effectively develop and successfully defend their performance system before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or in the courts. All organizations must understand how vulnerable their performance appraisal programs are to litigation and whether they are likely to be successful in defending their programs in the event of an official complaint. In the event the employer fails to show that its performance appraisal program was designed and administered on the basis of the Uniform Selection Guidelines established under the authority of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, the court may render the employer liable for back pay, court costs, specific management training programs for and/or promotion of protected group employees as part of the case settlement.

An analysis of recent court decisions reveal that circumstances involved in a successfully defended performance appraisal programs are described as follows: 1. Supervisors were given specific written instructions and training on how to complete the appraisals. 2. Job content was used in developing the basis of the appraisal instrument. 3. Appraisals were behavior oriented rather than personality trait oriented. 4. The results of the completed appraisal were reviewed with the employee appraised and the employee was given the opportunity to comment and submit written comments if appropriate. In addition, privacy legislation has been introduced or enacted in numerous states since the early 90s. In 1996 the Privacy Protection Study Committee released a report titled Personal Privacy in an Information Society. Among the 34 recommendations made by the Commission was the suggestion that an effective privacy protection policy must provide employees access to records relating to their qualifications for promotion, pay raises or to records relating to discipline and potential termination. Beyond the direct and potential legal implications relating to employee access to their records, there are other strong reasons for allowing such access. First is the issue of employee confidence in the performance appraisal systems reasonableness and fairness. If the results of performance appraisals are withheld, uncertainty and suspicion will surely result. Second, if appraisals are to influence performance in a positive way, results must be communicated. Third, access to results provides an opportunity for an individual to challenge judgments or to correct simple mistakes

37

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

which are inevitable in any system. Finally, access to such information is essential if the due process rights of employees are to be assured. In the final analysis, the integrity, the effectiveness and the legal defensibility of a performance appraisal system will depend on its legitimacy as a tool for making employment decisions. Employers should attempt to reduce the possibility that an employee will be able to establish a prima facie case of discrimination if for example there is a disproportionately small percentage of females and minorities in the top four EEO categories by establishing affirmative action goals. Second, the employer must be certain that the content of the performance appraisal system is based on job content and that performance measures are job related, and are not based on general traits that lend themselves to opinion, subjective judgment and rater bias. Third, in administering the program detailed and clearly written instructions must be given to each manager. Finally, the manager must be required to discuss the rating results with each employee to ensure appraisal sessions are productive and contribute to employee effectiveness. Each manager must be trained in how to rate employee performance and how to provide feedback in a positive fashion.

ed into the organizations mission and to correlate specific programs such as compensation issues, performance appraisal and job evaluation processes conceptually and operationally. In the 21st century continued changes will occur in terms of who works in organizations, why they work and what they do. A major part of the human resource professionals responsibility will be to coach operating managers and supervisors to realize that the manner in which they manage key HR decisions such as promotion and termination is of interest to several parties, to include one or more federal regulatory agencies. Senior executives must be prepared and encouraged to implement strategies for managing employees in ways that are fair and ethical and will meet government and public scrutiny standards. Clearly, supervisory management development must move from a one time orientation session to regular developmental programs to update, enlighten and expand basic management leadership skills. Designing effective performance appraisal programs to meet the needs of the organization and its employees requires substantial effort, dedication and commitment from the CEO down through all levels of the organization. Thanks to Howard Pardue, PhD., SPHR, for contributing this article. Many of the suggestions and philosophical views in this article were inspired by cumulative experiences as a practitioner and consultant in coordinating the implementation of organization-wide appraisal programs in a variety of industry segments and cultures. This paper is intended as general information, and is not a substitute for legal or other professional advice. For more information on this subject, send an e-mail to the SHRM Information Center at infocen@shrm.org

Conclusion
The 21st century promises a more demanding and visible role for all human resource professionals. This role requires developing a futuristic strategic plan which articulates human resource programs which address a myriad of issues. Creating and maintaining viable performance appraisal programs is essential to organization growth. Yet, even more significant initiatives will be developing a visionary human resources agenda that is integrat-

38

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

An SHRM White Paper

Change Performance Evaluations to Process Evaluations


By Richard J. Lukesh

n the 21st century, we cannot continue to emotionally abuse our most valued assets (employees) with the annual bloodletting called Performance Evaluation. In todays business environment where competitive advantages are determined by price, speed and quality, we need an evaluation process that promotes the corporate goal of Continuous Improvement on an individual level. We need to replace Performance Evaluations with Process Evaluations! Step #1 - The Process-Oriented Job Description Lets start with the basics - the Job Description. In reviewing the garden-variety job description, aside from the standard sections for ADA compliance, reporting lines, KSA requirements, etc., there is a section that describes the job with the heading

Activities, Responsibilities, Duties, or Tasks. This section is supposed to be representative of the job to be performed. However, it typically only provides a cursory list of activities such as: Prepares a variety of reports Handles customer complaints Provides accurate and timely information Establishes and maintains close liaison with clients. This section of the job description should identify the core activities of the job along with the most significant process steps for an activity and the quantitative standards for each process step. For example, the above activity, Prepares a variety of reports, can be broken down into the specific reports to be completed with process steps and outcomes for each report as follows:

PROCESS-ORIENTED JOB DESCRIPTION

TASKS/DUTIES
Completes monthly Sales Report.

PROCESS ACTIVITIES & INPUTS


Collects Sales Rep Monthly Territory Worksheets via fax or e-mail. Calls Sales Reps about missing Worksheets & information missing from the Worksheets. Inputs Worksheet data on Excel spreadsheets. Prints & proofs Sales Report. Delivers completed Sales Report to VP of Sales.

STANDARDS & OUTPUTS


By 5:00PM on the last workday of each month. By 11:00AM on the 1st working day of the new month.

Zero misspelled words & financial data must balance with Region Summaries. Between 9:00AM & 11:00AM on the 2nd working day of the new month.

39

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

An entire job description written in a process-oriented format accomplishes the following: A manager can identify the major process steps and outcomes for which an employee will be held accountable. An employee will have a clear understanding of the expectations of each activity. A manager can monitor changes in the number of core activities along with the time commitment and costs of process activities as those activities increase or decrease with business volume. The employee and manager can jointly and objectively review process steps and outcomes that affect departmental performance. By developing a Process-Oriented Job Description with an employee, the manager has laid the foundation for Continuous Improvement on an individual level. Step #2 - The Process Evaluation In todays customer competitive environment, companies are installing Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems as a way to individualize product and service offerings to the specific needs of each customer. Can we in management afford to do any less with our employees? The days of the one evaluation form fits all are long gone. If we are going to reduce accelerated depreciation (turnover) of our people assets, we need to respond to the day-to-day issues of the job (the processes) that affect the quality of work life for each employee. A Process Evaluation represents a major tool for improving quality of work life. However, the format of a Process Evaluation becomes critical to its success. If a Process-Oriented Job Description is properly developed, then 99% of the Process Evaluation

form is complete. To finalize the Process Evaluation, a manager simply adds three columns next to the Standards & Outputs column with the headings: Falls Below Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard. These three choices to the outcome of a given process step parallel the concepts used in process control charts to determine whether a process is in control. In Statistical Process Control (SPC) terms, a process is described as doing its best and in control (Meets Standard) when the process outcomes behave with random variability within the Lower Specification Limit (LSL) and the Upper Specification Limit (USL) of the process. Employee performance (process outcomes) can be thought of in the same terms and even plotted on control charts to determine if the outcomes are stable and predictable, or whether the outcomes represent excessive variation thus signaling the presence of special causes. In essence when a Process-Oriented Job Description is developed correctly, the manager simultaneously creates a position specific Process Evaluation form. At the time of the Process Evaluation (NOT Performance Evaluation), the employee and manager discuss the processes and outcomes of the position and jointly review strategies to improve quality, reduce cycle time and lower process costs. This process review simply analyzes the three dimensions of competitiveness (quality, speed, price/costs) on a micro level that the organization should be analyzing on a macro level. Additionally, the Process Evaluation updates the job description yearly.

40

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

For an executive who is assigned strategic goals such as Improve market share by 10%, the process-oriented format works equally well. A process-oriented goal would require an executive to identify the process steps and benchmark standards for each step. A goal, such as improving market share, may have 25 significant steps, many of which are highly interdependent on other areas such as suppliers, manufacturing, market research, advertising, recruiting and training of new sales reps, etc. These steps must be precisely orchestrated to achieve the desired output; otherwise, the year-end evaluation results in executive finger pointing and excuses. It is the orchestration of these steps, as well the outcome of each step, that an executive should be measured against, not just the end result. The Process Evaluation creates a collaborative employee/manager environment where the Process-Oriented Job Description becomes the driving element of a companys Continuous Improvement effort and the job description becomes a work-in-process rather than a once and done event. Step #3 - The Behavior Assessment Question: Can an employee meet the standard on every process output and be fired for poor performance? Answer: No! However, the employee can meet the standard on every process output and be terminated for unacceptable behaviors. There seems to be an unwritten rule in business that suggests we hire people for their hard skills such as degrees, achievements and experience, but we terminate them for lack of soft skills such as ability to work in a team, misplaced emotion, inability to change, inconsiderate treatment of subordinates or customers, etc.

The truth is that employers have a right to expect employees to exhibit certain positive behaviors or at the very least not exhibit certain negative behaviors. On the other hand, employees have the right to know what behaviors the employer will reward and punish. If a manager has an employee who meets the standard on all process outputs, but is a disruptive force within the organization, the manager has an obligation to confront the employee with the errant behavior and develop a plan to minimize or eliminate the behavior. If the behavior does not change, the employee may be terminated. Simply stated, an employee must meet the behavior expectations of his/her manager. Despite the fact that two separate managers may have different behavior expectations for the same department, employees must satisfy the behavior expectations of the person in charge. For example, an individual who manages a Collection Agency may demand that employees present themselves to delinquent accounts in a very demanding and confrontational manner. Another person managing the same Agency may require Collectors to use a soft-sell consultative approach. In either situation, employees who may have been rising stars under one manager are now examples of unacceptable behavior to the other manager. This example illustrates the need for a manager to develop a representative list of behaviors that he/she considers exemplary of successful/top performers and those behaviors considered typical of unsuccessful/low performers. By creating this list of behaviors, the manager can objectify many of his/her subjective behavior expectations. This behavior list can then be distributed to employees, reviewed with the employees and

41

A Report from the SHRM Survey Program

should be part of an employee-manager discussion disassociated from a Process Evaluation. It is imperative that the Manager reviews this behavior list with Human Resources to avoid any discrimination problems as a result of identifying behaviors that represent ethnic/cultural differences. The behavior list forms the basis of a Behavior Assessment in which the manager engages an employee in a discussion about the managers observation of positive and negative interpersonal skills exhibited by the employee. Clearly, this exercise is very subjective compared to the objective Process Evaluation. However, the manager is paid to maintain a productive and cohesive team. With every team there are rules of behavior designed to maximize the output of the team or at the very least minimize disruption to the team. When an employee does not play by the managers rules, despite how subjective the rules may be (Caveat: the rules must be legal), the manager, as the teams coach, is obligated to bench the player, regardless of the exemplary individual output of the person. By separating Behavior Assessment from Process Evaluation, a manager separates any errant

behaviors from outcomes of the job. If however, the behavior is a factor that truly affects a process outcome, then the specific behavior needs to be addressed in the Process Evaluation as a special cause that affects the variability of the process and causes the process to be out of control. For example if an employee were frequently late for work but meets standard on all outcomes, it would be inappropriate to commingle an exchange about this behavior at the Process Evaluation, as this may tend to hinder the employees full participation in the discussion of process steps and outcomes. However, in the case of a Collection Agency employee who falls below the LSL of the Collection Ratio for the Agency because of an abrasive phone presence, the Process Evaluation would be an appropriate setting to review this behavior as a special cause of variation in process output. In this latter situation, the employee and manager would brainstorm a list of special causes that could affect the process outcome (Collection Ratio) to which the manager would add his/her observations of the employees abrasive telephone mannerisms. An action plan would then be developed to minimize or eliminate all of the special causes affecting process outcomes.

42

SHRM / PDI Peformance Management Survey

Conclusion
Many organizations have established Continuous Improvement programs that affect the high visibility processes with the largest impact on the bottom line. However, these same organizations fail to realize that the high visibility processes are supported by a collection of low visibility inputprocess-output events. As the objective and quantifiable techniques of Continuous Improvement are applied to individual positions in a Process Evaluation, the nature of the employee-employer relationship becomes more collaborative and less confrontational. When employees comprehend how their positions can be enriched by process improvement methodologies, the extension of the Continuous Improvement philosophy to major business processes is not such a huge cultural or educational leap. A Process Evaluation is a tool for dramatically improving individual quality, productivity and efficiency while eliminating historically one of the most hated employment events - the Annual Performance Evaluation. Thanks to Richard J, Lukesh for contributing this article. It is intended as information only and is not a substitute for legal or professional advice. Richard J. Lukesh is a Principal in the consulting firm of Regional Services, Inc. based in Exton, PA. For more information on this subject, send an e-mail to the SHRM Information Center at infocenn@shrm.org.

43